34

Planning cycle routes involves considering the most appropriate facility for any particular situation. This chapter identifi es the available facility types and their advantages and disadvantages.

6 POSSIBLE CYCLE ROUTE COMPONENTS

6.2 Provision requirementsThe New Zealand supplement to Austroads Guide to traffi c engineering practice: Part 14:

Bicycles (Transit New Zealand, 2004) (CDS) is the main design guidance tool for cyclist facilities on roads and paths.

Figure 6.1 is a guide to the desirable facilities in the road corridor for cyclists in relation to traffi c volume and speed and is most useful when planning for new situations. In practice, constraints on space, presence of side roads and driveways, type of users and costs will also dictate the choice of facilities to retrofi t to existing situations. These and other considerations are discussed below.

The fl ow chart in Figure 6-15 of the Cycle design supplement is a guide to choosing the desirable path facilities for cyclists in different circumstances.

6.3 Mid-block facilities Cycle facilities that can be provided between intersections include:• kerbside cycle lanes• cycle lanes next to parking• contra-fl ow cycle lanes• wide kerbside lanes• sealed shoulders• bus-bike lanes• transit lanes• mixed traffi c• paths.

Cyclists do not always need special or dedicated facilities. They do need provisions appropriate to their needs. For instance, wide kerbside lanes on arterial roads have similar benefi ts for cyclists as bicycle lanes (Hunter, 1998). However, cyclists prefer marked cycle lanes wherever possible.

Depending on the circumstances, cyclists may fi nd the following provision quite adequate, without dedicated facilities:• wide kerbside lanes• sealed shoulders• bus-cycle lanes• shared paths• slow, mixed traffi c• lightly traffi cked streets of adequate width• unsealed roads and paths• one-way streets where signs and markings permit two-way use by cyclists.

However, it may be necessary to use special guide or route signs to ensure a cycle route that includes such provision forms part of a coherent network.

6.1 Introduction

35

Traffic speed (85th percentile, km/h)

Volu

me

of m

otor

veh

icle

s (v

ehic

les/

day)

CYCLE LANES

MIXED TRAFFIC

CYCLE PATHS

NOTE: THIS DIAGRAM IS TO BEAPPLIED TO URBAN ROADS ANDIS NOT APPROPRIATE FORRURAL OR NON-URBAN ROADS

0

3,000

6,000

30 50 70 100

COMBINATIONS OF LOWSPEEDS AND HIGH TRAFFICVOLUMES ARE VERY RARE.WHEN THESE CONDITIONSOCCUR, SEGREGATION MAYBE DESIRABLE IN ORDER TOMINIMISE CONFLICTS.

9,000

12,000

CYCLE PATHS WITHSEPARATING VERGE

SEALED SHOULDERS

2010 40 60 80 90

1,000

2,000

4,000

5,000

7,000

8,000

10,000

11,000

Mixed

traffic

Cycle lanes or

sealed shoulders

Cycle paths

Figure 6.1: Preferred separation of bicycles and motor vehicles according to traffi c speed and volume.This diagram is based on RTA NSW (2003) and Jensen et al (2000), also DELG (1999), Ove Arup and Partners (1997) and CROW 10 (1993).

Figure 6.1: Notes 1. In general, roads with higher traffi c speed and traffi c volumes are more diffi cult for cyclists to negotiate than roads with lower speeds and volumes. The threshold for comfort and safety for cyclists is a function of both traffi c speed and volume, and varies by cyclist experience and trip purpose. Facilities based on this chart will have the broadest appeal.

2. When school cyclists are numerous or the route is primarily used for recreation then path treatments may be preferable to road treatments.

3. Provision of a cycle path does not necessarily imply that an on-road solution would not also be useful, and vice-versa. Different kinds of cyclists have different needs. Family groups may prefer off-road cycle paths while racing or training cyclists, or commuters, tend to prefer cycle lanes or wide sealed shoulders.

36

Kerbside cycle lane, East Coast Road, North Shore City, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Cycle lane outside angle parking, Greers Road, Christchurch, New Zealand. Note: clearance is barely suffi cient. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

6.4 Kerbside cycle laneDescriptionThis is a cycle lane marked beside a kerb, exclusively for cyclist use. The markings comprise an edge line and cycle symbols at regular intervals.

AdvantagesAll road users are likely to recognise the cycle lane and expect to fi nd cyclists there.

It provides a degree of separation between motor traffi c and cyclists.

It highlights cyclists’ rights to the road.

DisadvantagesThis facility restricts car parking.

Unless swept regularly, debris from the adjacent traffi c lanes will accumulate in the cycle lane.

It may not provide enough protection for inexperienced cyclists.

Recommendations As long as car parking issues can be resolved, kerbside cycle lanes are the favoured facility for roads.

Cycle lanes are preferred at the kerbside rather than adjacent to parked cars, so that cyclists can avoid opening car doors and pedestrians darting out from between parked cars.

Kerbside cycle lanes should apply permanently. Temporary applications, such as during daily traffi c peaks, do not offer enough provision for cyclists outside those periods.

6.5 Cycle lane next to parkingDescriptionCycle lanes comprising an edge line and regularly spaced cycle symbols can be provided next to marked parallel parking.

AdvantagesThis facility eliminates the need for parking restrictions and benefi ts other road users as it:• increases drivers’ ease of parking and entering and leaving parked vehicles • effectively reduces the road-crossing distance for pedestrians • improves the channelling of traffi c, encouraging a more orderly and predictable

traffi c fl ow.

DisadvantagesA signifi cant carriageway width is required.

When parking demand is low, motor vehicles will occasionally travel in the lane.

Some cyclists could still ride into an opening car door.

Car parking manoeuvres could inconvenience cyclists, and potentially cause confl icts.

Angle parking is not suitable next to a cycle lane unless there is extra clearance for parking manoeuvres.

Debris swept from the adjacent traffi c lanes accumulates in the cycle lane and requires sweeping. Traditional gutter sweeping misses this, so it needs special attention.

RecommendationsIf the road is wide and parking restrictions are unlikely to be acceptable, a cycle lane next to parking is likely to be an appropriate choice.

Kerbs protruding the width of the parking bay should be constructed at intervals to discourage vehicles travelling over unoccupied parking spaces.

Cycle lane next to parking, Marshland Road, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

37

6.6 Contra-fl ow cycle laneDescriptionContra-fl ow lanes allow cycling against the legal direction of travel in a one-way street. They have the same features as traditional cycle lanes and are located so that cyclists ride in the normal position on the left. (Cyclists pass motorists right shoulder to right shoulder.)

AdvantagesContra-fl ow lanes contribute to the network’s directness and coherence by allowing cyclists to avoid diversions along indirect or less safe routes.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

DisadvantagesOther road users, including pedestrians, may not expect cyclists to travel in the opposite direction to other traffi c.

Contra-fl ow lanes generally preclude parking on the cyclist’s side of the road, though exceptions may be possible in traffi c-calmed situations.

RecommendationsContra-fl ow cycle lanes should be used in one-way streets where cyclists might otherwise be forced to divert along indirect or less safe routes.

Any new proposal for a contra-fl ow cycle lane should be well publicised.

Intersection layouts must support this facility, particularly at start and end points and at side road intersections.

Contra-fl ow lanes should have a:• contrasting surface• road markings or islands separating the opposing directions of fl ow.

Contra-fl ow cycle lane, Cambridge, United Kingdom. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

6.7 Wide kerbside laneDescriptionA wide kerbside lane is wide enough to allow cyclists and motor traffi c to travel beside each other with a reasonable degree of comfort. It can be used where there is not enough road width for cycle lanes or as prescribed by CDS Figure 4-1. It is the preferred on-road facility where part-time parking is required, such as in clearways.

AdvantagesThis facility requires less space than the combined width of a travel lane and a cycle lane.

It is easily implemented by re-marking the position of a kerb lane line, subject to width requirements.

DisadvantagesWide kerbside lanes do not highlight cyclists’ legitimate presence on the road.

Car parking restrictions are required.

Motor traffi c in the wider left lane may travel faster.

RecommendationsWide kerbside lanes should be considered where no other facility is possible.

The road surface next to the kerb side of the road must be of a high quality.

Wide kerbside lane, Burwood Highway, Melbourne, Australia. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

38

6.8 Sealed shoulderDescriptionA sealed shoulder comprises space and an appropriate surface for cycling outside the main carriageway, along the edge of an un-kerbed road. It is generally used in rural areas.

Advantage Widened shoulders benefi t all road users.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

DisadvantagesSealed shoulders usually narrow at bridges, at passing lanes, and at intersections with turn lanes. Generally, motorists travel at high speeds along roads with sealed shoulders, so cyclists are at signifi cant risk in these situations.

Sealed shoulders are sometimes made of lower-quality pavements, contrary to cyclists’ requirements.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

RecommendationsSealed shoulders contribute to all road users’ safety. They are benefi cial to cyclists, particularly along high-speed rural roads. They should be smooth, continuous and debris-free to encourage cyclists to use them.

Sealed shoulder, Marshland Road, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

6.9 Bus lanesDescriptionA bus lane is a lane reserved for buses in which cyclists are allowed to travel. By law, bus lanes may be used by cyclists unless specifi cally excluded by a sign.

AdvantagesBus lanes may be more easily justifi ed than either bus-only lanes or cycle lanes alone, as they benefi t both buses and cyclists.

Buses often use these lanes infrequently during off-peak times, offering cyclists unobstructed access for the most part.

Cyclists also benefi t from any bus priority measures along a bus lane route.

DisadvantagesThe LOS is limited, as buses obstruct cyclists by stopping regularly — and in narrow lanes cyclists can prevent buses passing.

Lane widths where drivers are unsure whether there is suffi cient room to pass, create the greatest cyclist stress.

RecommendationsWide lanes should be used wherever possible so that buses can pass cyclists within the lane.

Narrow lanes may be acceptable where there are no bus stops, bus speeds are low or buses can pass cyclists by temporarily moving out of the lane.

Avoid ambiguous lane widths that are neither wide nor narrow.

Bus-cycle lane (but note lost continuity through junction), Auckland, New Zealand. (Photo: David Croft)

39

6.10 Transit laneDescriptionA transit lane can only be used by public passenger vehicles, motor cycles, cycles and motor vehicles carrying a specifi ed minimum number of passengers. From a cycling perspective, it is similar to a bus lane.

RecommendationTransit lanes must be wide so that cyclists and motor traffi c can travel in parallel within them.

6.11 Mixed traffi cDescriptionMost roads are mixed traffi c roads, where no formal cycle facilities are provided and cyclists share the roads with other road users.

There are two types of urban mixed traffi c situations. These occur where:• traffi c volumes are low, traffi c conditions are straightforward, and there is enough

space for motor vehicles to overtake cyclists • traffi c is slowed to near cycle speeds, the road is narrow and cyclists and motor

vehicles share the same space travelling in single fi le.

Situations where drivers are unsure whether there is enough space to overtake appear to create the greatest stress.

AdvantageThere are few costs apart from traffi c calming, which is also done for other reasons.

DisadvantageContinuity of route standards may be compromised where there are mixed traffi c conditions on a route that is part of the primary cycle network.

RecommendationsCycle facilities may not be required if the roads are in an appropriate condition.

Ensure the continuity and integrity of cycle routes by using signage and continuing cycle lanes where mixed conditions are otherwise appropriate.

Ensure the environment makes it clear where cyclists have room to travel beside motor traffi c or need to travel single fi le. Avoid ambiguous widths and layouts.

Mixed traffi c on backstreet, Delft, The Netherlands. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

40

6.13 Exclusive cycle pathDescriptionAn exclusive cycle path can only be used legally by cyclists.

AdvantagesOn exclusive cycle paths cyclists can generally proceed without delays caused by, or in confl ict with, other path users.

This facility can offer cyclists a higher LOS.

DisadvantageWalkers sometimes use exclusive cycle paths when their own facilities are comparatively poor.

RecommendationsExclusive cycle paths are preferred where they are likely to be used by a signifi cant volume of commuter cyclists.

Care is required to ensure pedestrians can be well accommodated elsewhere.

Exclusive cycle path, Southern Veloway, O’Halloran Hill, South Australia. (Photo: Kym Dorrestyn)

6.12 Paths — generalThere are three main path types for cyclists:• exclusive cycle path• shared path• separated path.

Each may be isolated from roads or right next to them. A ‘cycle path next to road’ is also discussed on page 42.

Cycling through Hagley Park, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo: Neil Macbeth)

41

6.14 Shared path DescriptionA shared path is shared with pedestrians and possibly others (for example horse riders).

AdvantagesThis facility is useful to cyclists as well as pedestrians, and therefore maximises the benefi t of the path to the general community.

It is benefi cial to vulnerable cyclists where an existing footpath can be adapted or widened.

DisadvantagesConfl ict between cyclists and pedestrians is common where, for instance, there is a signifi cant volume of cyclists and pedestrians or a mix of recreational walkers and commuting cyclists.

The LOS for cyclists can be poor where interference by other path users results in slower speeds.

See also 6.16 Cycle path next to road.

RecommendationsShared paths are benefi cial to a range of path users but need to be managed effectively. They are appropriate where both cyclists and pedestrians need a path, but their numbers are modest.

It is important that:• the path’s design is suitable for its use and demand• authorities adequately monitor users’ behaviour on the path. • the connections between path, road and driveways are carefully considered.

Shared path, Wairere Drive, Hamilton, New Zealand. (Photo: Paul Ryan)

6.15 Separated path DescriptionThis is a path with separate sections for cyclists and pedestrians.

AdvantagesSeparated paths may help to avoid the confl ict between pedestrians and cyclists that is common on shared paths.

Cyclists can ride without the delays possible on paths shared with walkers.

DisadvantagesHigher cyclist speeds are possible, but having a cycle path close to pedestrians means they can stray into the cycling space.

Separated paths are wider than other paths, so they cost more.

RecommendationsSeparated paths are appropriate if large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians will use them.

There should be adequate separation (such as different path levels) between cyclists and pedestrians.

Separated path with barrier rail, Bielefeld, Germany. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

42

DescriptionThis is a common facility in Europe, usually for one-way cycle traffi c. The paths are generally paved in a different colour and texture from adjoining sections of the berm, and may also be separated by a low kerb.

Confl ict at bus stops, Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Pedestrians obstruct cycle path while waiting to cross, Bielefeld, Germany. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

One way cycle path next to road, Utrecht, The Netherlands. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

6.16 Cycle path next to road

AdvantagesCycle paths next to roads can offer a low-stress environment that can be attractive to many cyclists.

They can be particularly helpful for short lengths, such as at squeeze points in the road carriageway.

DisadvantagesUnder New Zealand traffi c law, cyclists on paths are required to give way to other traffi c when crossing side roads. This results in delay for cyclists.

Intersections are where cyclists are at the highest risk. In Europe, paths on berms have been shown to be less safe at junctions than if the cyclist was on the roadway. For this reason best European practice requires cycle tracks to return to the roadway before intersections. At signals, special cycle phases can be introduced for cycle paths, at the expense of complexity and delay to all road users.

The benefi ts of cycle paths alongside a road between junctions can be negated by:• inadequate clearance for visibility at

driveways• frequent or busy driveways• inadequate clearance from opening

doors of parked vehicles

• bus passengers boarding and alighting from the cycle path

• pedestrians encroaching on the cycle path when the footpath is congested, or while waiting to cross

• garbage awaiting collection obstructing the path.

Where cyclists ride in both directions along paths, drivers using driveways and side roads may not expect cycle traffi c from both directions. Best European practice outlaws two-way cycle paths alongside roads with access from driveways and side roads.

It is less convenient to turn right from a cycle path next to a road. Cyclists have to cross the whole traffi c stream in one manoeuvre, whereas from a cycle lane they can fi rst merge across to the centre. However, a right turn from a separate path may be safer.

It is generally expensive to establish this facility, due to relocating kerblines.

RecommendationsBetween intersections, cycle paths next to roads can provide attractive and safe facilities for a wide range of cyclists, provided there is adequate space and interference from other users is minimal.

Carefully consider safety and delay at intersections, where it is usually preferable for the path to rejoin the roadway.

Cycle path by Albany Highway, North Shore City, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

43

DescriptionUnpaved roads or paths can be acceptable to cyclists in some circumstances.

6.17 Unpaved roads and pathsAdvantagesThe initial cost of establishing an unsealed facility is relatively low.

Unsealed facilities help in integrated cycling with environmentally sensitive locations.

DisadvantagesUnsealed facilities can be hazardous, depending on gradient, crossfall and surface media.

They also require regular maintenance.

RecommendationsIn general, the surface must be well compacted and drained.

The surface medium should be capable of self-repair.

In steep terrain, erosion can be minimised and user safety maximised by using devices such as hairpin switchbacks for turns (International Mountain Bicycling Association, 2000).

6.18 Suitability for cyclist typesMost facilities are likely to benefi t cyclists, but how much will depend on the cycling environment. Table 6.1 shows the relative benefi ts of the different facilities for cyclists with different skills. It is necessarily broad and subjective, and individual cyclists will vary. Interpret the table with caution, and use your own judgement.

CYCLE FACILITY OPTION CHILD/NOVICE BASIC COMPETENCE EXPERIENCED

Kerbside cycle lane55 55555 55555

Cycle lane next to parking5 5555 5555

Contra-fl ow cycle lane5 5555 55555

Wide kerb side lane55 555 5555

Sealed shoulder55 55555 555555

Bus lane5 55 5555

Transit lane5 55 5555

Slow mixed traffi c555 5555 55555

Paths55555 5555 555

Legend: Benefi t: 5 minimal benefi t, 555 moderate benefi t, 55555 most benefi t

Table 6.1: Suitability of cycle facility option for different cyclist categories

Unpaved path, Ionia, Michigan, United States of America. (Photo: Dan Burden www.pedbikeimages.org)

44

6.19 Intersections 6.19.1 General

When planning intersections for cyclist use, the goal is to accommodate cyclists safely with a reasonable LOS, and at a reasonable cost, within the available constraints.

6.19.2 Key principles

The key planning principles relate to the type of intersection control and the provision of adequate space.

The design should ensure that:• the intersection performs effi ciently

for cyclists under the traffi c conditions expected throughout the planning period

• it is as far as possible suitable for cyclists of basic competence

• all normal manoeuvres are possible, particularly right turns (including the option of hook turns)

• the confl ict area between through-cyclists and left-turning traffi c (especially heavy vehicles) is managed. Left-turn slip lanes can simplify this by moving left-turning traffi c confl ict points away from the intersection and providing space for hook turns

• confl ict points are easily identifi ed• cyclists and drivers know where cyclists

are expected to be on the road • the intersection is consistent in

alignment and standards with mid-block facilities on approach and departure.

Helpful design information can be found in the CDS, Vicroads (2001), Austroads (1999) and Transfund New Zealand (2003).

6.19.3 Roundabouts

A higher proportion of cyclist injuries happens at roundabouts than at any other intersection type. Multi-lane roundabouts are the main culprits and should be avoided on cycle routes where possible.

Small, single-lane roundabouts, that are designed to tame traffi c speeds, have been proven to reduce cycling injuries. These roundabouts slow traffi c by using the shape of the islands to defl ect traffi c onto a curved path, and by ensuring visibility to other traffi c is not excessive. They require no special provision for cyclists (Austroads, 1999; Bach and Diepens, 2000).

External perimeter paths should be considered for large multi-lane roundabouts (Austroads, 1999; Bach and Diepens,

2000), but will generally result in a poor LOS for cyclists owing to crossing delays. Grade separation or conversion to traffi c signals is strongly preferred over multi-lane roundabouts.

Cycle lane leading to advanced stop box, Colombo Street, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo: Neil Macbeth)

Hook turn, trial markings, Merivale, Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo: Andrew Macbeth)

Slip lane treatment, Hamilton, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Cycle lane diverts to cycle path to negotiate multi-lane roundabout, Otaha Valley Road, Albany, New Zealand. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Grade separation at multi-lane roundabout, Wairere Drive, Hamilton, New Zealand. (Photo: Paul Ryan)

45

6.20 StructuresA number of structures are used in association with cycle provision, such as bridges, underpasses and overpasses.

This section outlines a number of grade separation options that aim to help cyclists cross railways and high-volume, high-speed roads that have signifi cant risks and potential for delays.

Railway cycle underpass and footpath, Utrecht, The Netherlands. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Bridges need to be much higher to clear trucks using a road, than underpasses carrying cyclists need to be down below a road. Cyclists also prefer to speed up going down a ramp to an underpass, and use their momentum to travel up the ramp on the other side. Bridge ramps are generally higher requiring more effort to negotiate.

However, bridges are generally less expensive, have no drainage requirements, have fewer lighting requirements and offer advantages in personal security and vandalism.

Site topography may favour either a bridge or an underpass.

Covered bridge over railway prevents objects being dropped and provides shelter, Cambridge, United Kingdom. (Photo Tim Hughes)

Personal security is important. CROW (1993) provides numerous suggestions to enhance personal security at tunnels.

Because structures are expensive, the needs of cyclists and others must be properly identifi ed, particularly in relation to:• constructing a motorway• planning new residential areas• designing a structure.

46

6.21 Traffi c calmingTraffi c calming devices can improve cycling conditions in local streets with mixed traffi c conditions. A wide variety of devices are used, so accommodating cyclists will depend on the individual characteristics of the devices.

For example, cyclist bypasses are generally appropriate where there are:• single-lane devices• road narrowings• devices with abrupt changes in vertical

alignment.

Bypass facilities can often be constructed using the original carriageway surface.

Other measures that may be appropriate are:• path links at road closures• contra-fl ow lanes or path links at

one-way devices.

6.22 Restricted traffi c areasPedestrian needs and comfort are paramount in pedestrian zones and public places where traffi c is restricted. In these areas, the desirability of cycling (and any associated provisions) needs to be determined — bearing in mind that it is important to accommodate cyclists whose desire lines pass through a pedestrian area.

The common options are:

• allowing cyclists and pedestrians to mix freely

• providing designated paths for cyclists through the area

• allowing a combined use with selected motor vehicles (for example, buses, taxis and service vehicles)

• restricting cycling during certain periods• prohibiting cycling in certain places.

The most appropriate approach will depend on the situation and the nature and behaviour of both pedestrians and cyclists.

Permitted cyclists are guests, and are expected to travel at a speed and in a way that is consistent with a walking space and to yield to pedestrians unless they have their own defi ned space.

Priority should go to information signs and public relations campaigns for the peaceful coexistence of pedestrians and cyclists, with minimal use of signs and line markings.

6.23 Complementary facilitiesEnd-of-trip facilities (such as secure parking, lockers and showers) and trip facilities such as shelter, water and toilets are important infrastructure for cyclists. These are covered in section 3.6.

Speed cushions with cycle lane bypass, Melbourne, Australia. (Photo: Tim Hughes)

Cyclists walk through pedestrian precinct on riverside cycle way, Portland, Oregon, United States of America. (Photo: Tim Hughes)